JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.S-72 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on office objection  “A”.

02. For orders on M.A.No.3064/2021.

03. For orders on M.A.No.3065/2021.

04. For hearing of main case.

20.03.2023

                        Mr. Khan Muhammad Sangi, Advocate for the appellant.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the appellant by maintaining her dispossession from the subject land at the hands of private respondents filed a direct complaint, for their prosecution under Section 3 & 4 of  Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; it was brought on record, after due inquiry  and after due trial, they were acquitted by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, vide judgment dated 04.-06.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

            It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents on the basis of misappraisal of the evidence, therefore, it is to be examined by this Court. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case of Shahabuddin Vs. The State (PLD 2010 SC-725).

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            As per impugned judgment, an FIR with regard to the subject land was lodged by father of the appellant with P.S Napar Kot against the private respondents in year 2011; both the parties are indulged in dispute over the subject land since long; once proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC were also undertaken and a Civil Suit for Specific Performance of Contract for the subject land is also pending adjudication before the Civil Court having jurisdiction and the private respondents have been found to be in possession of the subject land since year 2001. By making such observation, learned trial Court recorded acquittal of the private respondents which is not found arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.

                        In case of State and others Vs. Abdul Khaliq and others           (PLD 2011 SC-554), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“The scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is most narrow and limited, because in an acquittal the presumption  of innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence, that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty; in other words, the presumption of innocence is doubled. The courts shall be very slow in interfering with such an acquittal judgment, unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, suffering from the errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence; such judgments should not be lightly interfered and heavy burden lies on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence which the accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal. Interference in a judgment of acquittal is rare and the prosecution must show that there are glaring errors of law and fact committed by the Court in arriving at the decision, which would result into grave miscarriage of justice; the acquittal judgment is perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion has been drawn. Judgment of acquittal should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous. The Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on the reappraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could possibly be arrived at, the factual conclusions should not be upset, except when palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities”.

            The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the dispossession of the complainant at the hands of private respondents being Qabza group, on the basis of fake documents was proved. In the instant matter, the parties are litigating over the subject land since long, even from the time when father of the appellant was alive and it is not indicating issue of land grabbing.

            In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant criminal acquittal fails and it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications. JUDGE